If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: Mitty wrote: It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in that area. That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish about it :-) When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing is 2500), which was approved. OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what you did. On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good thing. wrote the following: Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you can go straight-in once cleared for the approach. What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says: 5-4-9. Procedure Turn a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. I don't see anything in there about 300 feet. That is the criteria for timed IAPs or HILs at FAFs. If you think it is unreasonable, then do the procedure turn, by all means. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
OtisWinslow wrote: "Mitty" wrote in message ... Question for the controllers he I should have flown the full approach including the procedure turn. TIA, Mitty You did. If you were on the protected side (procedure turn) side of the final approach course you chose a perfectly fine way to get turned around. In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment as the PT. But, so what? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Roy Smith wrote: I don't see anything in there about 300 feet. This is what the guidance to procedures specialists says: j. The use of notes to prohibit a final approach from a holding pattern has been DISCONTINUED. The following guidelines apply: (1) Where a holding pattern is established at a final approach fix in lieu of a conventional procedure turn, the minimum holding altitude must meet the altitude limitation requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(1). NOTE: Holding in-lieu-of PT at the FAF is not authorized for RNAV procedures. (2) Where a holding pattern is established at an intermediate fix in lieu of a conventional procedure turn, the rate of descent to the final approach fix must meet the descent gradient requirements of TERPS Volume 1, paragraph 234e(2). (3) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is used in lieu of a procedure turn, the MHA for the missed approach must conform to the altitude or descent gradient requirements of paragraph 855j(1) or (2) above. Missed approach holding must not be established at the FAF for RNAV procedures. (4) Where a holding pattern is established for the missed approach at an intermediate or final approach fix, and a holding pattern is NOT used in lieu of a procedure turn, establish a conventional procedure turn to permit pilot flexibility in executing a course reversal and descent to final approach fix altitude. This paragraph is not applicable to RNAV procedures. Trying to get the AIM to conform with design intent is an unending game. Why don't you contact AOPA and have them get the AIM corrected? |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Just did a similar one on my IPC last month - instructor says if
inbound course in hold is within 30 degrees and altitude permits normal approach, continue the approach. In this case, we had a 31 degree course difference, so he made me do the PT :-) Needed the practice anyway. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
In article ,
wrote: I think everybody is losing sight of the fact that the idea is to fly the approach safely. BINGO! We can nit pick on the rules all we want, but in the end what is most important is that we fly safely! There are things that are legal, but not safe, and there are things that are safe, but not legal. What we want to do in stay in the intersection of the two: both safe AND legal. -- Dane |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
You're absolutely right about a racetrack being an acceptable course
reversal maneuver. Too many instructors are hung up on the 45-180 printed on the plate as being somehow blessed by the FAA to the exclusion of all others. Bob Gardner "Roy Smith" wrote in message ... Mitty wrote: It was a while back, but I'm pretty sure the instructions were along the line of: "Proceed direct Gopher and hold as published at 3000, expect further clearance at xx:xx Zulu." 3000 seems to be minimum vectoring altitude in that area. That makes sense. I'm not sure why you said you were "vectored into the hold", though. You went direct to the VOR and held. Nothing vectorish about it :-) When I told him I was ready to go he cleared me for the approach. I then asked for another turn in the hold to lose altitude (FAF crossing is 2500), which was approved. OK, here's my take on this. Since you were not vectored to the final approach course, and were not approaching the FAF along a segment labeled NoPT, you were required to perform a PT. A racetrack pattern is a perfectly acceptable way of flying a PT, and it sounds like this is what you did. On the other hand, this is a bit of a grey area in my mind. Rather than second guessing the controller, a quick radio call will eliminate any possible confusion on both sides. Lack of confusion is always a good thing. wrote the following: Finally, let's say you missed the approach and park in that pattern until the weather improves. Because it is a pattern that is lined up correctly and not more than 300 feet higher than the FAF altitude, you can go straight-in once cleared for the approach. What does the "300 feet higher" have to do with anything? The AIM says: 5-4-9. Procedure Turn a. A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an intermediate or final approach course. The procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver. The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown, when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not authorized. I don't see anything in there about 300 feet. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I always try and fly an approach in actual with the minimum of
manuevering. It seems in training the emphasis is to fly an approach with the maximum of manuevering. So when I do some hood work with an instructor, I usually have to verify which program we are on. I also like to spend some time on departures, which I think are just as difficult as approaches, when done in actual. As usual, your mileage may vary. I have always thought it was unecessary to do a hold if you are already established on the final approach course. I see no reason to do a procedure turn if you are in this hold at the correct altitude. I certainly hope the regulations agree. I know that ATC agrees with me. They don't want me up there going around in circles, unless they've told me to. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
wrote in message ... In this case the hold is not on the same side of the intermediate segment as the PT. But, so what? Right you are. I couldn't get the link to work from the original post .. and having gone back in thru the FAA site and looked it up I see that now. However I'd still do it the same and just come around and finish the approach. I'd be sure the controller knew what I was doing .. but seldom do they want you just out there riding around. They want you on the ground and out of their airspace in the quickest manner that's safe. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instrument Checkride passed (Long) | Paul Folbrecht | Instrument Flight Rules | 10 | February 11th 05 02:41 AM |
Instrument Rating Checkride PASSED (Very Long) | Alan Pendley | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | December 16th 04 02:16 PM |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Hold "as published"? | John Clonts | Instrument Flight Rules | 83 | November 13th 03 03:19 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |